torture an iraqi prisoner???

[Snagged]

Russ,
I don't think it should take an attack for people to see a problem building. IE: The older people are too concerned with their starbucks to pay attention to the world around them.
As to selling our young people short, I don't. I see them every day, they say Yes sir, or No Sir, they are neat clean and don't have filthy hair hanging down to their ass. They are pilots, mechanics, crewmen, Marine grunts and Navy Squids. most of all they are red blooded Americans who care about their country.

[hatidua]

Originally Posted by Uncle Russ

Gentlemen:
But, without regard to waterboarding, or the right and wrong of the Iraqi invasion, I would ask you, Hatidua, whether you can conceive of any hypothetical situation in which torture--without limits, even--would be ethically justified as national policy. The classic example, of course is the scenario in which the government has a strong indication that a nuclear weapon has been smuggled into Manhattan and is triggered to explode in 24 hours. CIA has in their custody an individual who, to a high degree of probablility, knows where the weapon is located. He is one life--an important one under American law--and worthy of the presumption of innocence (back Jerry, back Boy!). But there are over 10 million people in the New York area--lives as worthy as his. You are President Obama or Bush or McCain. Would you resort to torture in the absence of any other effective measure?

Within the limits of what you propose, I have no problem with torture whatsoever. However....defining those limits once a thread has run this long is a bit late in the race to be changing the rules. Excluding the right or wrong of invading Iraq from the equation after so many are ready to attach a positive and negative wire to some Iraqi's nuts is sweeping the precursor of this discussion conveniently under the table.

It'd be a lot like saying that Saddam didn't like the way a number of things were done here and decided to liberate us (save the U.N. bovine fecal matter for someone who ignores the fact that the U.S. picks which resolutions to uphold and which to ignore) and once invaded, decides to start extracting info from all the good 'ole boys with shotguns in pickups who took potshots at his Revolutionary Guard troops who ride through town on camels each afternoon. Would the Iraqi army guys be wrong to hook up your nuts to an outlet to find out information that they never would have needed had they stayed in their own little sand box?

I'm not against going abroad and getting some use out of the arsenal our tax dollars fund if justified. I have issue with the enthusiasm with which we play international bully and everyone back home jumps on the "fry their balls" mob mentality. I'd like to think most could rise above that but I've been wrong numerous times before

[Snagged]

Take a look at a map and you'll understand why we needed bases in that area.

[hatidua]

Originally Posted by Snagged

Take a look at a map

I'll do you one better: I've personally spent time in the area

[Snagged]

If you've looked at a map then you should understand why we're there.

[Uncle Russ]

Jerry: You are right of course. I shouldn't stereotype the young any more than I want them to stereotype me.

Mark: Not trying to change the rules of the argument in midstream--just replying to the latest round. You won't find any pretense in my thinking that the Administration's stated reasons for going to war in Iraq were the whole story. Presidents lie. Sometimes they have to--sometimes they just get in the habit and stay there. My own theory is that it was a chance to remove the largest standing army in the Muslim world and we took it. As for being the "biggest bully" on the planet, I respectfully disagree--historically we have been its biggest body guard. Right or wrong as the invasion may have been, we were not removing from power a government that had any right to exist--but rather one which killed tens of thousands of its own people. Again, respectfully to the folks on the other side of my argument, I am constantly amazed that the folks who, for lack of a better word, I will characterize as "liberal" advocate that the United States intervene all over the world--in places like Darfur--where we have no heavy national self-interest--but feel we are bullys for asserting ourselves in areas of the world where we do. Some have argued that such advocacy constitutes anti-Americanism. I personally give such folks the benefit of the doubt--it is a good thing to for the strong to come to the aid of the weak where genocide is being committed. Is that why we entered Iraq? Clearly the answer is "no." But did it prevent further genocide--at least by Sadaam? Clearly the answer is yes. Whatever happened to the WMD, he had them, and he used them--on his own people. So I do think "bully" is something of an over statement in this case--the effect of our invasion turns out to have some good consequences, whether those who disagree with the invasion and its intent care to agree or not.

Not speaking of you, but I find it almost grimly amusing to talk with some who are disappointed that the surge has worked. I have to agree with Obama that that does not change the moral issue of whether we should have invaded in the first place--although I disagree with him on that question.

I once carried a placard in a prade in the sixties which read: "End all war now!" I wonder now whom I intended the audience to be. I suppose it was the United States government. But perhaps I should have directed it at folks like Breznev, Lamumba, Nassar, Hussein, etc. etc. ad nauseum unto the end of the Earth--who, like Hitler, Stalin, and Attila, are the ones who really start wars.

I am bombarded by friends and acquaintances on the left who tell me my 230 year understanding of the Constitution is outmoded--on such subjects as the second amendment and the notion that courts should not make law. Yet when I argue that the modern problems presented by terrorism may mean that we need to adopt a changed view of the first, fourth, and fifth amendments, the outrage nearly knocks me off my feet.

Obama is taking the interesting position that he will pull out of Iraq in 16 months--we will disregard the potential negative consequences of telegraphing Presidential intent to our enemies--but says he will protect our interest and those of the Iraquis, should Al Queda re-trench. Arguably, that would result in many more deaths than we have experienced in Iraq to date. We shall see.

But, in spite of the vitriol we toss at each other on such difficult subjects as abortion, war, and religion, we generally don't end up killing each other. And we are all Americans--just pretty passionate ones.

Peace--so long as it is possible.

Russ

[Snagged]

St. Peter is at the Pearly Gates


St. Peter is at the Pearly Gates checking up on the people waiting to enter Heaven..

He asks the next one in line, "So, who are you, and what did you do on Earth?"

The fellow says, "I'm Barack Obama, and I was the first black to be elected President of the United States."

St. Peter says, "The U.S.? A black President? You gotta be kidding me! When did this happen?"

Obama says, "About twenty minutes ago."

[hatidua]

I'm a slow learner: I'm going to stick to the fishing end of the forum, I like too many of you too much to sink into these debates.

peace/
mark

[Snagged]

Mark,
Debates are fun as long as nobody thinks he'll change the other persons mind.
I admit to being a hawk just as I was when I played the game in SEA.

[Gunsmoke]

The soldier in the picture below pretty much sums up my opinion.